What does U.S. get for missile move?

Republicans talked of President Obama “appeasing” Russia,” “betraying” Poland, and bringing back the Carter administration. They didn’t like his decision Thursday to scrap plans for a missle defense system in Poland and in the Czech Republic, and they dusted off some vintage Cold War anti-communist rhetoric and endorsements of missile defense to express it.

Obama and his aides cast the decision as almost a technical one. But for a president who has said repeatedly that he wants to return U.S. foreign policy to the hard-headed pursuit of national interests rather than scoring ideological points, it was also tangible evidence that he meant what he said.

Story Continued Below

Some members of Obama’s own party, however, had a simple question for the administration: if this was a return to realism, and a concession to Russia’s long and vocal opposition to the missile program, what, exactly, was the U.S. getting in return for fundamentally changing it?

And almost certainly, the answer leads back to Iran.

“If it turns out that the Russians now are willing to take a very tough stand on the next round of sanctions on Iran – for instance, in the Security Council — then you can say , ‘Hey, it’s a trade and it’s a good trade,” said Walter Russell Mead, the Henry A. Kissinger senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations. “If the Russians don’t deliver something pretty substantial back, it does raise questions about what do they think they were achieving. We’ve got to wait for the other shoe to drop on that,” he said.

Obama himself, in belatedly-scheduled remarks Thursday morning, hinted at a link between the change in plans and Russian cooperation on Iran.

“We welcome Russians' cooperation to bring its missile defense capabilities into a broader defense of our common strategic interests, even as we continue … our shared efforts to end Iran's illicit nuclear program,” he said in a carefully-worded statement.

That anticipation was echoed more bluntly in Congress.

“It is no secret that this missile defense shield has been a thorn in Russia’s side,” said New York Senator Chuck Schumer in a blunt statement belying the White House’s insistence that the shift was based purely on intelligence and technical considerations.

“President Obama is clearly demonstrating his willingness to reset relations between our two countries, and the Russians should return the gesture<’ Schumer said. “It is time for Russia to join our push to impose stricter sanctions on Iran in order to halt its nuclear weapons program.”

Rep. Ed Markey of Massachusetts, a leading backer of Obama’s push to reduce the number of nuclear weapons around the globe, had equally high expectations. “By removing a major irritant in U.S.-Russian relations, this shift makes it more likely that we can secure Russia’s support to get tough on Iran’s nuclear program,” he said.

A shift in Russia’s posture on Iran would offer some vindication for Obama’s new approach, and there is no shortage of possibilities for how the government of Russian President Dmitri Medvedev could demonstrate his government’s intentions.

Russia could offer its support in the United Nations Security Council for tough new sanctions, or put a halt to its work on an Iranian nuclear power plant in the port city of Bushehr or to reports that it will sell Iran a sophisticated air defense system.